A Ship of Fools

I want to address what I see as a disastrous movement in math education. I believe we must understand the damage being done because too many states and school districts have moved toward “constructivist” or “discovery” math curricula especially in elementary grades. Do the new curricula work? YES and NO. Yes, they do work for a subset of the total math problem set. They work to allow students to do basic arithmetic with the aid of four-function calculators. However, they don’t work in providing the foundational skills required if the students will ever face the need to study algebra or higher math. Thus, my indictment of the “constructivist math” programs is that they waste time on an alternative method to solve the easy problems when they should be studying the optimized over centuries algorithms and skills that work for the easy problems but also work for the more difficult problems as well. This makes “double work” for students who want/need to take algebra and higher math because they have to learn the old algorithms anyway. This makes algebra much more difficult for students who have been exposed to constructivist math curricula.

You may ask, “Why did the educators decide to go this way, they are the experts, after all.” First, they are not generally expert in subject knowledge. Fallacies have begun to show in the methods area as well but that is a topic for another time. While there are certainly educators who have a good understanding of the math they are teaching, the vast majority do not. This is not only true of math but most subject areas because the education schools focus the majority of their curriculum on “methods” classes. It is not hard to understand why educators who don’t understand the subject but are under achievement testing pressure would like a curriculum that makes the “teacher” into a “facilitator” helping the kids “discover” the subject matter. That is so much easier in their eyes than having to take the remedial classes they would need to increase their subject knowledge to the required level. So, who’s to blame if the scores come in lower than the standards? Must be the kids who are teaching themselves, it couldn’t be the teachers.

So who are the fools on the ship? The educators? Well, because they are acting in their self-interest, fools may not be the best description. The students? They are doing as they are expected to do, so we can’t blame them. How about US? Do the parents, legislators, dept of education, school boards, the general public, etc. have a role to play here? Yes, we do. Is our performance any better than the educators? Not really. We are accessories to the crime that is being committed against our kids. We are far too gullible. When we have a health problem and go to a doctor, we often ask for a second or third opinion. If we have a serious problem like cancer, we will likely do self-study on the internet, in the library and other sources. Do we tolerate half-truths and propaganda about the healthcare system’s performance on the problem?

But if the subject is our children’s future wellbeing we don’t seem to be concerned at all. When our schools turn in poor results do we get involved? It has been easier for us to participate in the delusion that the education system is well run and effective so that we can avoid the work of digging for the truth and demanding better performance of our schools. When our kids shy away from higher level math because they didn’t receive the appropriate foundation in their early schooling do we investigate the reasons the system didn’t prepare them properly? Do we demand the truth of school performance in the context of how are the kids being prepared to cope in the more and more competitive global economy? The truth is there to be seen and it is scary. Our kids score near the bottom in math and science and near the middle in literacy in the three major international achievement tests that compare us to our competitor nations. Is that OK when high paying jobs are leaving the country because companies have to go where the educated workforce is?

Do we bat an eye when the educators take the low and easy road to make it easy for themselves? Do we complain about the huge amounts of money being spent to implement harmful curricula like Everyday Math, when the schools are always asking for more money, more money, more money? Perhaps we should say no more money until you can prove you are not spending a lot of it irresponsibly.

It’s time to get off of the fool’s ship and start demanding much better performance from our educators. We must start by getting to the truth in spite of the propaganda and misinformation being put out by the education entities. If we don’t our kids and the nation will have a very difficult time competing against nations where education is far more rigorous and effective in providing the skills kids need to compete in the new global meritocracy.

Ammunition

1. If an educator says the new constructivist math programs have been research based and are approved, tell them that much of the research in education is slanted to support the vested interest of the sponsor of the “research.” Also, much of the rest of education research is poorly done from a statistical rigor point of view which makes the conclusions highly suspect. Mention the What Works Clearinghouse on the US Dept of Education website which details their findings on ed research.
2. Ask an educator, esp. math teacher to compare the old standard algorithm taught to most of the adults when they attended school to the new “magic seven” or partial quotients algorithm taught in Everyday Math, one of the most popular constructivist curricula. Everyday Math is widely used in this area and districts are working hard to spread it across all elementary schools. Next ask them to explain why the old algorithm works for dividing polynomials in algebra and the magic seven algorithm does not. Then ask them if they expect that none of their students will ever want or need to take algebra in middle or high school. If they truly understand even relatively elementary math they should be able to do this. Don’t be surprised if they babble without a clue.

Selfish pursuits are good unless it is a government program

Adam Smith in his famous Wealth of Nations asserts that rational self-interest and competition operating in a social framework depending on adherence to moral obligations, can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. If that is true, why is the education system performing so poorly? Educators certainly work at promoting their own self-interest. Ah . . . It must have to do with the lack of competition and adherence to moral obligations. Let’s think about those two things.

First, while there is some competition present, our education system is basically a government-run effort with responsibility spread between Federal, State and Local governments. This bureaucratic approach has led to an education system for the vast majority of American children that is unresponsive to their needs. The school choice movement is about allowing competition to occur. In spite of the bureaucratic straight jacket that goes with government funding many charter schools have been started and many are competing very effectively with their “mainline” counterparts. This has led to a groundswell of complaints and whining from those working in the mainline schools. They view it as taking resources away from “their” work and a threat to their place at the government trough.

So, what enlightenment can be gained by considering Smith’s other point about adhering to moral obligations. Do the public schools have a moral obligation to provide high quality educational experiences to all American children? You notice I didn’t say “adequate,” I said high quality. While the definition of what constitutes high quality is open for discussion it is obvious that it is not a continuation of the current status quo.

In the book I am writing I propose what I call The Ethical Basis of Professionalism in Education. I used the Hippocratic Oath as a basis which I modified for education. It does provide the basis for a good self-examination by educators to encourage a more balanced approach to their advocacy for themselves on a personal basis in the context of the moral obligations that Smith espouses.

The Ethical Basis of Professionalism in Education

PRIMUM NON NOCERE

The Hippocratic Oath spelled out the first responsibility of a professional in clear terms. This 2500 year-old code of conduct for Greek doctors has stood the test of time. The most famous element in the Hippocratic Oath is Primum non nocere—“Above all, not knowingly to do harm.”

Professionals, whether doctor, lawyer, teacher, or engineer cannot guarantee to do good for a client. But they are constrained by professional ethics to TRY. They also can promise that they will not knowingly do harm. If this is not true the client can have no trust for the professional. The professional has to have autonomy in that the client cannot control, direct, or supervise the professional. The professional’s knowledge and judgement have to be entrusted with the decisions. However, because of this, the professional is expected to act in the public interest. So a professional is private in that they must not be subject to political or ideological control, but they are public in the sense that the welfare of their client sets limits on their words and deeds. Thus, primum non nocere, “above all, not knowingly to do harm” is the basis of all professional ethics, an ethic of public responsibility.

When this rule of ethics is not followed it causes grievous social harm. It tends to misdirect and prevent understanding. When ignored widely in a profession it can make the public lose all respect for that group.

Following are more of the professional expectations written by Hippocrates, with small changes to translate them for educators.

I will use methods of instruction which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my students, each on an individual basis considering that student’s needs.

Fairness requires impartiality, objectivity and intellectual honesty. It involves keeping my own feelings, prejudices and desires in check so that I may properly balance conflicting interests.

Educators and those in training shall always place the best interest of students above their own direct or indirect interests.

I will keep to the highest expectations of myself in the practice of my profession.

I will discipline myself to always work for positive results in my classroom and the district as a whole. I will avoid participation in negative and unproductive pursuits.

I will discipline myself to hold those things which should be confidential, confidential. I will not participate in harmful rumors and criticism of people behind their backs.

I will continually seek the truth of my performance so that I can work to perfect that performance.

Copyright © 2007, PWR